Connect Mechanical

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, but do not describe side effects. The description adds that it can launch or attach and probe readiness, but it fails to disclose key behaviors like starting a background process, the meaning of 'replace', or potential resource implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and three optional parameters, the description is far too minimal for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not specify how to choose between launching vs attaching, what 'replace' does, or how the timeout is applied, leaving significant gaps in operational understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no parameter-specific information. It does not explain the 'port', 'replace', or 'connect_timeout' parameters, leaving the agent without the necessary meaning beyond just their names and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Launch' or 'attach') and resource ('Mechanical batch mode', 'existing gRPC instance'), and adds the action 'probe readiness'. This distinguishes it from sibling launch tools like geometry_launch and fluent_launch, and from other mechanical_* tools that solve, apply loads, or check status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the main use cases: when you need to start Mechanical in batch mode or connect to an already running gRPC instance. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as mechanical_status for checking readiness.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.